Had to happen unfortunately. The less than idea lockdown criteria in NSW has been a factor in the spread of the Delta variant and the lack of containment especially in NSW.
General Aviation Thread
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
Except that for quite a long time most freight has been going in the cargo holds of passenger aircraft. Airbus hasn't sold new-built dedicated freighters because conversions of aircraft retired from passenger service are cheaper. The conversion cost is much less than the price difference between a new dedicated freighter & an ex-passenger aircraft.
That may be changing, though, because of uncertainty over future passenger demand following covid-19. There are currently passenger aircraft with the seats cleared out carrying freight in the cabin, but able to be restored to passenger service quickly, because the slump in passenger traffic has left a gaping hole in freight capacity, & many passenger aircraft available for full freighter conversion. Nobody knows whether passenger demand will recover fully, & thus make all that underfloor space available again.
It's not really financially viable for air freight companies to buy new build freight aircraft, when they can get conversions for ¼ of the cost. For example a new build A330-300 is around US$200 million, regardless of whether it's a pax or freighter aircraft, and US$18 million for the conversion and whatever the going rate is for a used A330-300. So you're looking at getting probably 20 years out of a converted aircraft which is quite reasonable.
The video below explains the process quite well and the reasoning of why conversions trump new builds.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Classic line, “containers don’t throw up”!
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Just read an Airlines Industry for Asia Pacific reports preparing by some colleagues in Hong Kong based US Investment Bank. Due to confidentiality I can not post it here. However I can say basically two thing:
1. It will take up to 2024 for passanger Airlines business in As-Pac to get back to the level of 2019. This with the condition that by mid 2022, the capacity allready back to 60% of 2019.
2. However Freighter business still shown relative stronger growth, and there're signs some of storage airliners (including those in Alice Springs) will be converted to freighters.
This will provide Freighter Airlines on getting conversion on reletively younger airframes. Thus this raise questions on newly build freighters, like 777F, cause there're potential excess supply of 777 with relatively still young airframe age that can be use for conversion.
Guess Airbus and Boeing plan to provide newly build freighters will face tough competitions from their own products.
1. It will take up to 2024 for passanger Airlines business in As-Pac to get back to the level of 2019. This with the condition that by mid 2022, the capacity allready back to 60% of 2019.
2. However Freighter business still shown relative stronger growth, and there're signs some of storage airliners (including those in Alice Springs) will be converted to freighters.
This will provide Freighter Airlines on getting conversion on reletively younger airframes. Thus this raise questions on newly build freighters, like 777F, cause there're potential excess supply of 777 with relatively still young airframe age that can be use for conversion.
Guess Airbus and Boeing plan to provide newly build freighters will face tough competitions from their own products.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If many of the newer stored jets are potentially to be converted proves correct it would be bad news for new widebody freighters. Makes Airbus’s decision on a A350F questionable. Bigger problem though is the passenger market recovery for long haul flights with high passenger loads. COVID and increasing geopolitical tensions in Asia could hamper the long transPacific market.
I presume that having an A350F option available gives a chance of breaking into the market for freighters bigger & longer-range than an A330, if there's a demand that 777 conversions can't fill. AFAIK A340 conversions aren't popular because of operating cost & the number of airframes available isn't very big anyway.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Actually the popularity of A-340 toward freighter conversion is quite good. However you are right the Airframes number not that much on term of availabilities. Used to be A340 200/300 is more attractive, and from what I gather it's related to the operational costs of their CFM engine. However recently even the 600 got momentum on conversion to freighter business.
The four engines economics is not getting as much as concerned in Freighter relative to the passenger lines. Video that Ngati put explain one of the reasons. The turn around time for Freighter is faster than commercial passenger Airliners. Also those four engines ex Airlines are coming cheap in the market. We see how 707 and DC-8 still being used in Cargo business decades after they're passing out from passenger lines.
The four engines that still found difficulty to attract market for converting in to Freighters are A-380. 747 has capabilities to be converted to have front cargo door, thus can give access to certain cargo type. Technically A-380 should have more cargo space than 747. However from what I gather it can't provide flexibility of 747. Seems Airbus rumours still working on that.
The four engines economics is not getting as much as concerned in Freighter relative to the passenger lines. Video that Ngati put explain one of the reasons. The turn around time for Freighter is faster than commercial passenger Airliners. Also those four engines ex Airlines are coming cheap in the market. We see how 707 and DC-8 still being used in Cargo business decades after they're passing out from passenger lines.
The four engines that still found difficulty to attract market for converting in to Freighters are A-380. 747 has capabilities to be converted to have front cargo door, thus can give access to certain cargo type. Technically A-380 should have more cargo space than 747. However from what I gather it can't provide flexibility of 747. Seems Airbus rumours still working on that.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Didn’t realize passenger 747s could have the option for a front loading door on conversions, thought that was only on 747Fs, another reason A380 conversions would be a tough sell without this.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
How The Lifting Nose On A Boeing 747 Cargo Plane Works
simpleflying.com
It's an expensive conversion option, according to this article most of converted 747 owner choose not to take it. However seems the article hinted it's available if some cargo Airliners want to choose it.
According to IAI Bedek, they can provide variety of cargo loading options in their highlight page line. Still their video shown cargo door in rear fuselage, that's seems in line with what simple flying article on 747 conversion above.
I believe the problem with A380 is on how to make the upper deck for efficient cargo holding. 747 conversion so far seems not touching the upper deck for Cargo holding, and only for crew accommodation. However this resulted that the 747 lower deck volume is larger than A380 lower deck. Make it more attractive for cargo Industry.
Airbus need to think how to create more attractive conversion for A380, if they want it to continue flying in future.
Last edited:
There is a system where containers can be lifted by elevator from the lower deck of an aircraft to the upper deck. It's used in cargo conversions where the main deck isn't strengthened and light containers go on the main deck with heavy ones in the hold. It is automated so that the light containers are loaded first going through the lower hold then lifted by internal elevator to the main deck and moved to their stowage point. Once the main deck is loaded, the elevator is left stowed as the deck on the main deck and the lower cargo is then loaded. Unloading is in reverse order. Advantage of this system is that no holes are cut in the external airframe and it's significantly cheaper. A similar system could work for the A380, between the main deck and the upper deck.How The Lifting Nose On A Boeing 747 Cargo Plane Works
It's an expensive conversion option, according to this article most of converted 747 owner choose not to take it. However seems the article hinted it's available if some cargo Airliners want to choose it.
According to IAI Bedek, they can provide variety of cargo loading options in their highlight page line. Still their video shown cargo door in rear fuselage, that's seems in line with what simple flying article on 747 conversion above.
I believe the problem with A380 is on how to make the upper deck for efficient cargo holding. 747 conversion so far seems not touching the upper deck for Cargo holding, and only for crew accommodation. However this resulted that the 747 lower deck volume is larger than A380 lower deck. Make it more attractive for cargo Industry.
Airbus need to think how to create more attractive conversion for A380, if they want it to continue flying in future.
LCF Conversions - Innovation
Last edited:
Found an article on the current use of temporary freighter conversions of A340s, & proposals for permanent conversions.
European Aviation responds to pandemic with plans for A340 cargo fleet - Air Cargo News
Apparently there was an A380 carrying light cargo on passenger decks for an operator in Malta (Hi Fly), but it's been retired.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Put the image from Airbus site on the concept that Airbus try to sell for A380 Freighter conversion.
However seems it's still not attracting enough attention especialy from their largest customer Emirates.
Exclusive: Airbus floats concept for A380 freighter conversion
The A380 has mostly been a bust as a giant passenger plane. Now Airbus is trying to salvage some value by offering to convert passenger planes into full-time cargo planes.
www.freightwaves.com
This is just 4 months old article, thus considered quite recent development on A380 Freighter talk. Seems several potential big users like UPS and Fedex have doubt about the abilities of second deck to hold their standard container pallet, well at least that how I get from the articles.
Thus seems it's still back to the question on viability of the upper deck for cargo use. Airbus then try to sell Combi concept to Emirates with Upper deck still for passangers and lower deck for dedicated cargo space.
However Combi concept something that seems not too attractive for most Airlines. Seems KLM is one from major Airline that used 747 Combi for certain routes (I know they once used it for Amsterdam -Jakarta Route), even that now they drop it. In sense Combi can work only for certain routes where the passanger demand relatively thin while the Cargo can take the rest of space. However KLM then decide to drop instead they just combine Jakarta and KL routes to fill the plane.
So seems it's back to Airbus on how to make Upper Deck attractive for big cargo player. If the problem that upper deck not really suitable for standard cargo pallet, then it's big problem. Cargo players will not going to create another pallet for only A380 upper deck. It will not be efficient for their global logistics. If players like UPS and Fedex still hesitent with that, I think it will be hard to sell to other players.
We can see the cargo door on the Airbus Image above. It's shown different size with lower deck cargo door. Thus means different size on Cargo Pallet, something that will not be attractive for Cargo players.
This is interesting. Such a rugged aircraft, with Western systems, would be a useful asset to many northern operators here in Canada, and potentially many others elsewhere. I'd like to see even more such link-ups with Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers.
skiesmag.com
Antonov, Canada looking to produce modernized An-74TK-200 transport aircraft - Skies Mag
Ukrainian aircraft manufacturer Antonov and the Quebec government are working toward a much-anticipated joint venture to produce a modernized An-74TK-200 aircraft in Quebec for the North American and international markets.
skiesmag.com
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
By Norh American market I assume you mean Canada. An aerospace project with Ukrainian and Quebec government involvement would be crucified by the US aerospace lobbyists. A more serious issue for Quebec is investing money in a very unstable Ukraine. After Bombardier milking the Quebec taxpayer you would think they’d have learned by now.This is interesting. Such a rugged aircraft, with Western systems, would be a useful asset to many northern operators here in Canada, and potentially many others elsewhere. I'd like to see even more such link-ups with Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers.
Antonov, Canada looking to produce modernized An-74TK-200 transport aircraft - Skies Mag
Ukrainian aircraft manufacturer Antonov and the Quebec government are working toward a much-anticipated joint venture to produce a modernized An-74TK-200 aircraft in Quebec for the North American and international markets.
If they were going to do something like that they would be better completely upgrading the aircraft or starting with a clean sheet design. Antonov are going to have to consider replacement of their Ruslans at some stage and there is nothing wrong with the overall all design. It just needs to be modernised and westernised. Actually it would be a prime candidate for a complete virtual build. That way it could be determined where significant changes could be made. Such as composite materials instead of metal.This is interesting. Such a rugged aircraft, with Western systems, would be a useful asset to many northern operators here in Canada, and potentially many others elsewhere. I'd like to see even more such link-ups with Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers.
Antonov, Canada looking to produce modernized An-74TK-200 transport aircraft - Skies Mag
Ukrainian aircraft manufacturer Antonov and the Quebec government are working toward a much-anticipated joint venture to produce a modernized An-74TK-200 aircraft in Quebec for the North American and international markets.
Maybe but if Ukraine were to go down the gurgler a good solid relationship between Canada and Antonov would provide Antonov with a safe fallback position. If push came to shove they could load a fair amount of their IP, gear, personnel and their families into those large cargo aircraft they own and upstakes to Canada. That's a heck of a lot of corporate knowledge that would be highly advantageous. If those south of the border get upset about it then that's good because it means that they really feel threatened. The likes of Boeing should clean their house first before poking their nose in other people's.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
AN-124, version 2, probably both a commercial and military market in 5-10 years.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
An option but our provincial and federal governments already have too much debt and corporate welfare would be a tough sell after the Bombardier experience. Australia might be a viable alternative with some nearby Asian partners.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Well if you believe Turkish media and forums, seems Turkey wants to absorb Ukraine aerospace tech and expertise. However so far no result yet on their co-op. I believe before they plan to rengine AN-70 with Turbofan as AN-77.
UAE will accept those with tech knowledge from failing companies. Many ex Denel Engineers already work there. Question will be why they're not sourcing Ukraines Engineers as much as from South African Aerospace and defense Industry.
UAE will accept those with tech knowledge from failing companies. Many ex Denel Engineers already work there. Question will be why they're not sourcing Ukraines Engineers as much as from South African Aerospace and defense Industry.